WELL-BEING EVALUATION AND CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

Retno Widodo Dwi Pramono (Gadjah Mada University) Prof. Johan Woltjer (Groningen University)

The evaluation of well-being and quality of life in communities has been a key issue for development planning practice. Nevertheless, we are still lacking an adequate framework for expressing and operationalizing issues of well-being in a coherent way. This deficiency is especially related to the absence of a set of indicators, which is contextual to the social, cultural, as well as political circumstances of the place where a community live.

There is a variety of indicators available, including GDP and HDI. However, these indicators have some limitations. In particular, indicators such as the per capita GDP or indices on income growth by definition are limited and generally fall short of articulating quality of life (Nussbaum and Sen, 1993). HDI was set to represent the whole concept of ‘capability’. Nevertheless, according to Kaley (1991) for instance, HDI is more as a linear concept portraying only the latest well-being/capacity, while leaving behind any evidence about when and to what extent human development has occurred, as well as the factors influencing.

An alternative to evaluating well-being based on GDP, is the ‘capability approach’ (CA) proposed by Amartya Kumar Sen (2000), which depicts ‘levels of freedom to choose’ as a central focus for development evaluation. CA has been widely recognized as

a useful evaluative concept for development achievement. However, how to operationalise it is still problematic. The main difficulty in the concept is related to the fact that the preferences of individuals are idiosyncratic due to personal, spatial, and temporal differences in situation.

The central argument to this paper is that by using assets indicators, the Capability Approach can be operationalized to express contextual and relative characteristics for the evaluation of a region.

Key Words: Development, Well-Being, Capability, Evaluation

Introduction

The concept of well-being is currently widely recommended as a benchmark for development policy evaluation (Nussbaum 2000, Clark 2002, 2005, Kahneman 2006, Fuentes and Rojas 2000, Bjørnskov et. all 2008). Nevertheless, a framework for expressing and operationalizing issues of well-being within the field of development, in an adequate and coherent way, is still lacking. This deficiency is mainly caused by the absence of a set of indicators which are contextual to social, cultural, as well as political circumstances, and specific to the situation planned for. Moreover, athough academic in nature, evaluation also has to be implementable to support practices in public policy formulation and development intervention. To meet this requirement, an evaluation framework will have to be contextual and specific to the issues characteristic of development planning, like land use management, accessibility, water supply, or public services. The context of any evaluation effort will include local problems, institutions, current aspirations, and potentials. regional development. Türksever and Atalik (2000) have observed the locality context of well-being evaluation. Their observations show that well-being relates to the degree to which the necessary conditions for satisfaction exist in

a given society or region. While well-being generally expresses individual qualities of life, it is also partly determined by regional-spatial conditions.

Well-being itself is commonly used to refer to quality of life, to someone's personal experience, and includes all aspects of a person's life, such as physical health, psychological well-being, social well-being, financial well-being, family relationships, friendships, work, and leisure (e.g.Schwartz, & Strack 1999, Kane 2003). Kahneman (2006) argues the importance of well-being as a concept to measure the comprehensive quality of life in public policies, including economic development policies, and, therefore, the need to focus on well-being as a research area. Similar voices include authors like Martha Nussbaum (e.g., Nussbaum and Sen 1993), and Jeremy Rifkin (e.g., Rifkin, 2009).

There are at least four approaches available in literature and have been used to determine well-being. These approaches include the commodity approach, which reasons mainly from an economic vantage point, a utilitarian approach, which mainly accommodates psychological concerns, a libertarian approach derived from John Rawls’s theory of justice, and capability approach (CA) derived from the view that development as freedom of Amartya Sen. CA seems to be the most comprehensive approach for evaluating well being In line with the notion of functioning in CA, this thesis brings together the commodity, utility, and political liberty approach in determining well-being.

The “Capability Approach” (CA), introduced in 2000 by Amartya Kumar Sen in his book Development as Freedom (2000) presents a new approach to the evaluation of well-being in a development setting. The central focus in CA is the notion of ‘levels of freedom to choose’. Sen defines capability as the level of freedom available to a person to

choose between various valuable “functionings 1 ” (states of being and doing). A large

1 This term is perhaps unusual in English. However, it will be used throughout this thesis, as it concurs with the terminology introduced and explained by AmartyaSen in his book “Development as Freedom (2000).

Functionings represent activities that can be potentially done by an individual. It also may represent certain characteristics (e.g. profession, social or economic status, or feeling) attributable to an individual.

number of freely available options imply a higher level of ‘capabilities’, wherethe level of ‘capabilities’ is an equivalent of the level of ‘freedom of choice’.

The merits of the capability approach (CA) are: 1) it allows for a variety of personal preferences and is locally contextual; 2) it considers reciprocal relationships between individuals’ interests; 3) it evaluates material and non-material well-being at the same time. Based on these characteristics of CA it is expected that –given a proper evaluation framework- planners will be able to evaluate regional development in relation to regional development aspirations. CA provides insight in factors of relevance to regional development and at the same time how to us these factors to the benefit of the region.The capability concept has been widely recognized as a useful evaluative concept for development achievement. However, operationalization is still problematic. The main difficulty in the CA concept is the fact that preferences of individuals are idiosyncratic due to personal, spatial, and temporal differences in situation.

This paper proposes a framework developed based on principles in CA to evaluate a community’s quality of life in a region. The reason taking CA is due to the merits of the approach due respect to individual aspirations, viewing well-being holistically, relative and contextual, thereby the framework will be taking into account the spatial, social, and political circumstances of a place. A so-called ‘Capability Index’ (CI) will be introduced in this paper to determine capability levels (level of freedom to choose) and their increase within a certain period of time. A higher index implies that a community has experienced

a higher improvement on their capability level, i.e. their state of freedom to choose. Because the level of freedom to choose indicates the level of well-being, which includes happiness, a higher CI may also indicate a higher level of happiness.

The variables included in CI are constructed based on results of perceptual survey in the study, which combines action research and case study to evaluate development. Magelang Regency in Central java, Indonesia as the case study area selected stands for dynamic economic consumption, production and transformation, with a variety of local community’s as well as government’s development innovations. Its economic situation also displays strong linkages to external and contextual circumstances. The region has a relatively strategic position in this sub national region, as it is located between two cities, Semarang and Yogyakarta, that are second order cities in the national hierarchy. Semarang is an industrial city at the northern coast while Yogyakarta is Indonesian’s second tourism destination and Indonesian’s largest inland educational centre. With this location, the regency is considered as not too isolated but not too open either. Its topography features strategic locations that offer many potential economic growth opportunities to sectors such as agriculture and nature-based tourism. Thanks to a variety of governmental development investment programs in the region, there has been a significant development of infrastructure and facilities such as electricity, market, health facilities, schools, and roads. Financial subsidies and fiscal policies that directly or indirectly influence communities’ cash situation are also quite intensive in this region. Magelan region is therefore a good case to explain the role of infrastructure and goods to assess the source and distribution of financial assets. The region is representative for the study of regional development in general, but, especially, agricultural regions. It has a semi-tropical humid climate and is surrounded by the Merapi, Sumbing, and Merbabu volcanoes. The area is about 1090 km2 with a population of about 1.2 million people, The variables included in CI are constructed based on results of perceptual survey in the study, which combines action research and case study to evaluate development. Magelang Regency in Central java, Indonesia as the case study area selected stands for dynamic economic consumption, production and transformation, with a variety of local community’s as well as government’s development innovations. Its economic situation also displays strong linkages to external and contextual circumstances. The region has a relatively strategic position in this sub national region, as it is located between two cities, Semarang and Yogyakarta, that are second order cities in the national hierarchy. Semarang is an industrial city at the northern coast while Yogyakarta is Indonesian’s second tourism destination and Indonesian’s largest inland educational centre. With this location, the regency is considered as not too isolated but not too open either. Its topography features strategic locations that offer many potential economic growth opportunities to sectors such as agriculture and nature-based tourism. Thanks to a variety of governmental development investment programs in the region, there has been a significant development of infrastructure and facilities such as electricity, market, health facilities, schools, and roads. Financial subsidies and fiscal policies that directly or indirectly influence communities’ cash situation are also quite intensive in this region. Magelan region is therefore a good case to explain the role of infrastructure and goods to assess the source and distribution of financial assets. The region is representative for the study of regional development in general, but, especially, agricultural regions. It has a semi-tropical humid climate and is surrounded by the Merapi, Sumbing, and Merbabu volcanoes. The area is about 1090 km2 with a population of about 1.2 million people,

Figure 1: Map of the Regency

Current Approaches to well-being Evaluation

Prior to the CA, at least three approaches were used to determine well-being. These approaches include the commodity approach, which reasons mainly from an economic vantage point, a utilitarian approach, which mainly accommodates psychological concerns, and a libertarian approach derived from John Rawls’s theory of justice.

The commodity approach emphasizes the linkage between commodity and well- being. It focuses on happiness and satisfaction and defines well-being in terms of pleasure attainment and discomfort avoidance, due to the presence or absence of commodities to the people (e.g. as explained by Sen 1985, Clark 2002). For the commodity approach, income is an important indicator for well-being. Income growth accumulated as capital is widely used to measure regional development progress and achievement. For the commodity approach, development is seen as a process of capital accumulation, while saving (or wealth) is the indicator for success, as explicitly stated in the following definition.

Development traditionally means the capacity of a national economy, whose initial economic condition has been more or less static for a long time, to generate and sustain an annual increase in its gross national income (GNI) at rates of 5% to 7%. A common alternative economic index of development has been the use of rates of income per capita to take into account that ability of a national economy to expand its output at a rate faster than the growth rates of its population. Level of rate of per capita GNI (monetary growth of GNI per capita minus the rate of inflation) is normally used to measure economic well-being of a population: how much of real goods and services is available to an average citizen for consumption and investment (Todaro, 2006 p.15).

The utilitarian approach represents a mainly psychological perspective. It presents measures of emotional or mental achievements such as pleasure, happiness, or The utilitarian approach represents a mainly psychological perspective. It presents measures of emotional or mental achievements such as pleasure, happiness, or

The libertarian approach is based on John Rawls’s theory of justice (1971) that views well-being as determined by the existence of a political basis that provides proper civil rights. In the libertarian approach, personal political freedom is most important for any state of well-being. Rawls argued that public choice of prioritized commodities would concur with public preferences when all community members have access to decision making. There should be proper civil rights to allow public involvement in deciding which commodity is to be produced or provided. Based on the above argument, libertarianism argues that the degree of political liberty and civil rights is basic to indicate well-being.

The most current approach to evaluate well-being is Sen’s Capability Approach: Amartya Sen has argued that, when employed separately, the commodity approach, utilitarian approach, and libertarian approaches are not adequate to express and evaluate well-being. Sen (2000) pointed out that the commodity approach is not enough to measure quality of life. Sen sees that a high quality of well-being, as well as poverty, cannot be properly measured by income. Sen argued that what matters for well-being are not the commodities that a person possesses, but what a person can be or can do using those commodities. Sen does not deny that the deprivation of an individual’s quality of life (capabilities) can have close links with the lowness of income. It is accepted that quality of life and income connect in both directions: (1) low income can be a major reason for illiteracy and ill health as well as hunger and undernourishment, and (2) conversely, better education and health help in earning a higher income. But a person needs besides commodities also personal abilities to be able to perform (to act certain functionings).

Sen did also not agree to merely use the utilitarian approach for evaluating well- being, especially in relation to public policy, such as regional development planning. He reasons that the utilitarian approach focuses too much on individual preferences for commodities and considers public preference as the sum of individual preferences. Whereas according to Sen, well-being and quality of life cannot adequately be reflected in the summed-up perceptions of pleasure or satisfaction (Sen 2000 p 56). Moreover, Sen argued that the aggregative framework of utilitarianism is not sensitive to the actual distribution of utilities.

Sen does not agree either with the libertarian over emphasis on political liberty in determining well-being. Sen argues that there must be a balance between political freedom and the fulfilment of economic needs. It is argued in this thesis that public debate/discourse to decide on commodities will not be effective for a community in all circumstances. For instance, in case of famine a community is in need of basic necessities. In such a situation, it will be more effective to decide on delivering basic needs through a top down mechanism rather than inviting the hungry for a public debate/discourse first. Based on this extreme example, it is difficult to generalize that the degree of political liberty can be the main indication of well-being.

In this thesis Sen’s argument is followed that the separate employment of the commodity approach, the utilitarian approach and the libertarian approach is not adequate to express and evaluate well-being. Improving commodities only will not ensure the attainment of a community’s perceptual satisfaction as proposed by the utilitarian approach. Vice-versa, surveying public ambitions of psychological satisfaction to achieve as proposed by the utilitarian approach, will not automatically give planners an indication of what commodities to provide. These inadequacies occur because the kind of commodities needed by separate individuals to achieve similar mental satisfaction might

be different (Qizilbash 1998). Overemphasizing the level of political liberty and civil rights to indicate well-being

will also be risky. Especially when democracy is not fully in place, or in case a society is sceptical to public decision-making processes. For instance in a rural community in a developing country, people often behave as ‘silent majority’. On the one hand they typically have a high participation grade in a public election due to effective mobilization. On the other hand they may often not be fully aware of the effect of that election. Their participation in decision-making processes is habitually low. Consequently, political processes to decide on public necessities may easily become elitist. In case of the latter a political discourse will not produce proper information about public problems and aspirations to regional development planners, as suggested by the libertarian approach. In such a context it is thus difficult for planners to really map public needs and the adhering problems and constraints.

As derivation of aforementioned approaches, currently, there are a variety of countrywide indicators available for expressing development attributes, including Gross Domestic Product (GDP), indices on income growth that derived from commodiy approach,. As these indicators pertain to nationwide statistics, they are limited in their usefulness to actually describe well-being and quality of life at the regional scale (Nussbaum and Sen, 1993). For the case of Indonesian regional development for instance, the increase in GDP or GDP percapita has not always been in line with people‘s general feelings on the improvement of their quality of life. An example at hand is the so- called Farmer Household Survey conducted by the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statisticsin 2003. It showed that people still felt their living situation to be unsatisfactory, while, at the same time, national and regional GDP showed significant progress. (see figure ….).

The growth of regional and The gro wt h o f a ye ar Per c apita GDB Mag elan g R e gen c y national GDP does not always concur

1 0,000.00 with a similar growth in well-being of

the population. An evaluation study by

Breman &Wiradi (2004) in Indonesia

(000 Ru piah)

showed that although the regional GDP

10.00 percapita had improved, a systematic

1.00 decrease of rural prosperity could be

1 9 70 1 9 75 19 8 0 19 8 5 199 0 199 5 200 0 200 5 2010 detected. Also rural-urban disparities increased (Baswir, 2003), while

Perception on Current Household Income

agricultural and rural economic

conditions

were unstable (e.g.

Three graphs in figure 2 showed

Central Java

that there is a contradiction between

P 20

public perception and economic growth.

0 The extensive two-stage random

More than enough Enough

Not enough

Very Low

sampling perception survey conducted

Percent Respondent

by the Central Statistic Bureau (CSB)

Perception on current economic situation

compared to previousy

of Central Java (Indonesia), on the

quality of life of farmer households is a

80 dent 70

case at hand.

pon 60 es 50 40 Magelang

There are two main reasons why

nt 30 R

Central Java

GDP is not sufficient to evaluate

0 quality of life. First is that certain

better Moderate

Worse

levels of GDP, or income percapita,

Perception

will be evaluated and perceived differently by different people.

Figure 2: The growth of GDP and community perceptual evaluation to current economic situation

The second reason is that GDP includes only material and measurable aspects, thereby ignoring important non-material, or wider aspects of quality of life.

Other indicator widely used to evaluate development is the Human Development Index (HDI) that claimed as derived from capability approach. This is a well-known effort to operationalize ‘capability’ was proposed in 1990, in the Human Development Report (HDR) by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). It served to replace previous income indicators. Sen’s concept on human development was used, defined as “a process of enlarging people’s choice”; The concept –better known as the Human Development Index (HDI)-was developed into a set of indicators to quantify the increase of an individual’s freedom of choice. The HDI was considered – as indicators such as life expectancy, adult literacy and real per capita gross national product (GNP) were included, to represent the whole concept of ‘capability’. Nevertheless, according to Kaley (1991), HDI is a linear concept portraying only the latest well-being/capacity, while Other indicator widely used to evaluate development is the Human Development Index (HDI) that claimed as derived from capability approach. This is a well-known effort to operationalize ‘capability’ was proposed in 1990, in the Human Development Report (HDR) by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). It served to replace previous income indicators. Sen’s concept on human development was used, defined as “a process of enlarging people’s choice”; The concept –better known as the Human Development Index (HDI)-was developed into a set of indicators to quantify the increase of an individual’s freedom of choice. The HDI was considered – as indicators such as life expectancy, adult literacy and real per capita gross national product (GNP) were included, to represent the whole concept of ‘capability’. Nevertheless, according to Kaley (1991), HDI is a linear concept portraying only the latest well-being/capacity, while

A further deficiency is that the HDI index is not contextual. The index is calculated on the basis of comparison of countries. By comparing countries (place), commodities (income) and abilities (health and education), they must be standardized for all places. Consequently the HDI cannot be contextual to a specific place.

Another effort relevant to ‘capability’ is an approach presented by Robert Ericson (1993). It a survey method for measuring levels of quality of life, and was applied in a study of Swedish households. The basic principle within the approach is the use of several indicators such as health and access to health, employment and working conditions, economic resources, education and skills, family and integration, housing, security of life and property, recreation and culture, and political resources such as membership of parties and voting participation. The introduction of these multiple indicators may satisfy one of Kaley’s requirements to adequately evaluate the phenomenon of production-transformation interplay among indicators. Nevertheless, because the indicators are evaluated using quantitative-standardized parameters, such as the ability to walk 100 meters or the ability to cover unforeseen expenses of up to $ 1,000 within a week, it contradicts the relative and contextual characteristics of‘capability’, which are idiosyncratic by nature. Therefore, Ericson’s approach cannot accommodate individual preferences and aspirations. It is in fact only an expanded version of the use of the per capita GDP indicator.

A similar approach to Ericson’s index is Mercer Quality of Living Survey 2010. Mercer’s survey covers urban environment components as indicators of quality of life, thereby adding non-physical indicators such as relations with other countries, internal stability, crime, law enforcement, and ease of entry and exit. The analysis is essentially the same as Ericson’s. Both assume absolute-quantitative analyses to value the indicators investigated.

Other evaluation methods have included perceptual data. Illustrative examples of these methods are, for instance, the Happy Planet Index (HPI) and the World Values Survey. HPI (Nefcentre, 2006) measures how efficient countries are in achieving certain levels of happiness. This index includes a perceptual survey on satisfaction, combined with life expectancy, lessened by the ecological footprint as a general standard of natural resource consumption. It is more or less similar to sustainable development measurement, but incorporates people’s perception of their level of satisfaction. The World Values Survey focuses mainly on periodically identifying perceptions. One important finding based on perception surveys is on the growth and decrease of happiness. Both methods may depict development, but do not generally provide information about the development process itself. An advantage of HPI is that it also depicts the cost to achieve the outcome, but again, it does not explain why certain levels of outcome are achieved, and how certain production factors and circumstances maybe interrelated to arrive at the outcome.

As a response to the aforementioned limitations of available indicators, the case study research presented in this paper aims to develop an alternative framework to As a response to the aforementioned limitations of available indicators, the case study research presented in this paper aims to develop an alternative framework to

Community’s self-evaluation on well-being: Case study in Magelang Regency, Central Java, Indonesia

The community’s self-evaluation of their well-being started with the question: how do you assess your present living situation (keadaan/suasana); is there any progress or improvement, for instance on welfare (kesejahteraan)/prosperity (kemakmuran). From the results of snowballing, it showed that profession and age influenced the answers upon quality of life and situational improvement/progressmainly. Typical answers that emerged were “better”, “not so much different/NSMD”, and “worse”.In fact, these typical answers were mentioned relatively quickly. This confirmed the findings of the CSB’s survey, and supported the argument that people do not evaluate well-being in absolute terms, but in relative terms.

This typical evaluation was very much influenced by the perception of each group on the opportunities available to them, such as what efforts they have to do to achieve something. This encompasses their professional opportunities, what they own or consume such as land, goods, livestock, technologies/knowledge, the market situation, and certain physical and social environmental factors. Table 2 shows the perceptions found classified according to profession and age.

Y oung (< 35) R E SP O N D E N T S F arm er (entrep reneur)

w orse 40 M ore diversified bu siness/com m odity

L ess diversified business/com m odity

B etter

NSMD

w o rse

B etter (a little) 18 V ery Sm all Farm er rent land (P enggarap)

B etter (a little)

w orse 22 G reat farm er*)

B etter

NSMD

w o rse

B etter

L ab orer

H ard agriculture w orker

w orse 24 C on stru ction W orker

B etter

NSMD

w o rse

w orse 12 Industry L abor

B etter

NSMD

w o rse

w orse 13 O thers (usu ally in inform al sector, or un clear)

NSMD

N SM D

B etter

NSMD

N SM D

w orse 18

E n trepren eur

Sm all H o m e food ind ustry

w orse 4 V illage shop ow ner

w orse

w o rse

B etter

W orse 5

T rad er

1st C ollector/M iddlem an

better 11 A rtificial F ertilizer

better

6 O rganic fertilizer

w orse

w orse (a little)

2 A gribusin essm an* )

b eter

better

T ran sp orta tion w orker/investo r

w orse 5 Investor

D river

w orse

w o rse

w orse

w o rse

G overnm ent official/M ilitary

B etter

B etter 8

P ension

better

14 30 92 61 197 *) the sam e perso ns N S M D : not so m uch different

R E SP O N D E N T S

Table 2: Groups Perception on Quality of Life

This table is based on a selection of representative interviews, whereas the following narratives are a further illustration of the typical perceptions found.

“Better”. Mostly successful agribusiness people, traders, and civil servants, such as teachers, and the military, and local government officers typically give this answer. These groups including government officers or pensioners are all engaged in agricultural activities as described in chapter 6 (see Table 6…). The size of these groups is relative small. During the time span of the survey, only four successful agribusiness people, who also acted as wholesalers, were encountered. These persons are locally known as juragan. The general impression was that the present situation is better than two decades ago. Due to the development of better transportation networks also in other parts of the nation, the market was enlarged with better opportunities to sell more local products or at

a higher price. Better access to agro-technology such as fertilizer increased the local productivity in tons per hectare significantly. This implies a positive impetus for their businesses not only by an enlarged market with better prices for local produce, but also by an increased availability of agricultural products for that market. There is however competition with distributors in other regions to export to a few concentrated markets such as Jakarta or the islands Bantam and Kalimantan. Nevertheless, the interviewees asserted that as they had permanent business partners in those markets, and that their business was safeguarded.

Although with different levels of confidence, smaller traders perceived the situation generally also as ‘better’. Some collectors/middlemen, for instance, said:

… as far as we can maintain good relations with farmers as well as with wholesalers (juragan), we can still run our business…. It is okay not to get so much profit but to have continuity.

… I feel the situation is better especially since I have my own car. I can easily move from one village to another without worrying the rent of a car except the gasoline…. The roads are also better now, only on several places there is still gravel, but in most cases farmers bring their commodity to tarmac roads. Of course when supply decreases we have to compete between us then sometime I have to use not so proper ways…

….wow, especially since I got a mobile phone (he showed me), I never experience any loss since I know the normal price in Jakarta. It is not easy anymore for juragan to manipulate the price….…. one time I may perhaps develop my business similar to them. I already know a big trader in Jakarta. Only because of lack of investment capital I have not had the chance to start developing my business... ….I am now trying to get closer access to this person in Jakarta. I hope that he will lend me money and I guarantee him to seek good and enough commodities for him…

…” I am happy with this new auction” said a middleman at the market. Now I do not have to depend on juragan anymore. There are always traders coming from other region to whom I can sell …. (Just to see his reaction, I asked him what would happen if farmers would directly sell their commodities here.)… I don’t think so. It will not be efficient for them, except for farmer in the direct vicinity of this market…Especially for commodities such as chillies they usually sell in small quantities for instance once in a week, depending on the size of their land …

Most government officers, living in the rural areas, also mentioned the perception “better”. All of them, especially those born in the region, are considered as belonging to a farmer family; their parents or even most of themselves do still practice on-farm activities. Commonly, they said that being a government officer has given them access to

a secure source of finance.

…” I can save or use my salary for non food”….said one of them,

Another man said, “Yeah although now the prices of some necessities increase, it is still okay for our family. We use our salary not for food, but mainly for kids schooling. Now my kids are still at the elementary and junior high school. I don’t know if he wants to go to the university…. let’s see”

….”Being a government officer makes it easy for me to buy a motorcycle on credit, or to access another line of credit, as for instance my colleague who set up a small home shop run by his wife”…

“In my time, almost everybody wanted to be a government officer (red vehicle license plates for state vehicles are associated with government officers). Imagine that you get a monthly salary, rice for the family (he said that he got 20 kg (?) per month when his 2 kids were still young), health insurance, and a guaranteed pension,” said a 65 years old pensioner.

Another group that perceives the current situation as “better” is the recently emerging organic fertilizer producer/retailer. I encountered at least 2 of such individuals in the research area, but according to them there are about 10 persons in this region and many more in other regions, doing the same. One of them said that the 10 who operate in this region are friends who previously were contracted by the Belgium Agribusiness Company in Aceh. After the end of the contract about three years ago, he had tried doing business in Jakarta, but eventually decided to establish his small business here. This person said that due to newspapers, television, and, most importantly, the coming of several NGO’s, farmer’s awareness in using organic fertilizer, or in his term ‘back to organic’, is increasing. And especially in the present days, farmers experience that some chemical fertilizers are difficult to get, and when they are available, only for a very high price.

“This situation is fortunate for me as I now have at least 200 farmer customers to supply to” he said.

There are other upcoming actors who also perceive the current situation as better. They are young men who inherit a small piece of land from their parents to cultivate but now also diversify their activities to selling seedlings grown on small shelves. They utilize their yard or even the side the street for this activity. When I asked them why they were optimistic that this business would continue to be beneficial to them, they said:

“Oh I feel no problem. In fact now we produce these seedlings not for local farmers. We now send this to regions such as Wonosobo (about 50-60 km away) and Yogyakarta (45 km away). Sometimes buyers also come here”

“No, no problem. We are well known for this business. My buyers say that the quality of seeds from other places is usually not as good as seeds from here”, according to another actor.

One of the most interesting findings is that the “better” perception also emergefrom people who get ‘help’, due to community’s values such as ‘solidarity’ (see chapter 6), and can thus not be classified by occupation or age. This statement, for instance, came from middlemen who were given the opportunity to buy product from farmers who could have sold the same produce directly on the auction. The farmers continue selling to the middlemen, as they have become a long time partner. Solidarity happens also within kinship relations that besides performing as a source for informal financial capital, also have significant influence in terms of land management. It is found that among the communities who have a kinship relation a selected group collates land in larger units to be managed/cultivated. This happens usually when some of them have jobs out of agriculture. By this practice, the members who are still engaged in agriculture have One of the most interesting findings is that the “better” perception also emergefrom people who get ‘help’, due to community’s values such as ‘solidarity’ (see chapter 6), and can thus not be classified by occupation or age. This statement, for instance, came from middlemen who were given the opportunity to buy product from farmers who could have sold the same produce directly on the auction. The farmers continue selling to the middlemen, as they have become a long time partner. Solidarity happens also within kinship relations that besides performing as a source for informal financial capital, also have significant influence in terms of land management. It is found that among the communities who have a kinship relation a selected group collates land in larger units to be managed/cultivated. This happens usually when some of them have jobs out of agriculture. By this practice, the members who are still engaged in agriculture have

“Worse” was the answer of all hard working agricultural labourers or most of the small holderswith less than 1000 m2 arable land. There are two factors that seem to be the reason for the “worse” perception. The first reason is that not having a motorcycle did not increase their assets, mainly land or a set of tools to be used for agricultural production. The second reason is very much influenced by their experiences of the certainty of ever increasing expenditures for daily necessities compared to the uncertainty of their income. They feel that although they have always stepped up their efforts for a higher productivity the revenues did not keep pace significantly while daily expenditures increase continually. Although the productivity and output increased, the cost of inputs increased too, while the yield’s price is uncertain. Thefollowing is an example of their perception.

“We (family) don’t know why luck has never been at our side (sepertinya tidak pernahberpihak pada kami). Living now is even worse than in my childhood, even worse. If in the past, although I knew my parents had not much money, we never had to worry about food. Now, with our very small landholding, we have to decide whether to grow paddy and some vegetables, or for commodities to sale. For us this is just like gambling. Of course we have more expectations besides only our daily food. We would like to give our kids a higher education, just like other families. We would also like to buy a motorcycle. However, like in gambling, we are only working and waiting. The basic hope is that we will always be able to buy food and pay our other bills, such as electricity and the social fund from the revenues of our harvest”

Similar to the hardworking agricultural labourer, most 50-70 years old respondents compared the current situation of food security and the margins on commercial commodities with the past. They asserted that although they had not much cash in the past, they never had to worry about food. Compared to the current farmers who focus to on cash crops, formerly farmers (until the 70’s) prioritized growing food crops for their own daily needs and set aside part of the harvest for bad seasons. Only cash crops such as cabbages and tobacco were obtaining prices with a very high profit margin. This group of informants observed that today’s farmer tends to depend on commercial commodities with a too optimistic expectation of market prices as compared to the rice price as experienced in 1970’s to the early 1990’s.

Another group that perceived the current situation as “worse” are the local drivers and industrial workers; they are worried about their future. Local drivers experience the decrease in customers since some farmers have invested in cars for transporting their own commodity and that of neighbouring farmers. Local drivers generally operate cars, owned by shopkeepers and/ or government officers. They said that their situation went even worse when the government raised the price of gasoline. Car owners agree with this perception, they even consider to stop their business and to sell their car. For the active industrial worker two things are worrisome. First the uncertainty of keeping their job, as this is dependent on the economy at large. The second reason is that their salary deflated due to ever increasing daily necessities prices. The following statement illustrates this worry:

“… Sometimes I think that not to be in deficit is just okay, Sir, perhaps, some small money left for gasoline and lunch. But we are happy that we now get health insurance”, said an industrial “… Sometimes I think that not to be in deficit is just okay, Sir, perhaps, some small money left for gasoline and lunch. But we are happy that we now get health insurance”, said an industrial

“…. I hope, that I will always be able to at least reach a minimum target to pay to the car owner every day”, said a public vehicle driver when I met him in Soka Market, Dukun. “The situation seems to be more difficult. I do not know whether I will survive doing this job or not. But in fact I also don’t know yet another job, can you suggest me Sir”, he even spontaneously asked me.

“A little bit worse”. Some synthetic fertilizer retailers who generally operate their shops at the village market place (village service centre) are feeling that the situation is worse for them. Some of them are descendants from Chinese immigrants.

“… Now it is not our golden period. (I interrupted, “when was your golden period?”). That was approaching 1980’s to around 1995. (What is happening nowadays?). She said, “Synthetic fertilizer now is expensive and even often disappears so that farmers tend to reduce the use of it, while some now use organic fertilizer. (Why do you not provide organic fertilizer?). ”No. I am not the producer of that. (Is there no producer who would supply you?). “No. They will not. They are local skilled people who produce very little. Most of them co-ordinate farmers by partaking in a farmers group. There is such a membership”. (“About the missing of artificial fertilizer, some people said retailers like you hoard it, is it true?”). “Not really, at least I myself do not do that”. (“So what is your prospect?”). ”I am little happy with the overwhelming use of mulsa plastic to avoid parasitic plants. Although the same farmer will buy it back after about one year, there is an increase in the number of farmers using the plastic. Perhaps we will also start to collect commodities (as wholesaler). I have space here”, she said just when her husband was coming and gave a sign to show me that they have talked about that.

“Not so much different/moderate/fluctuating”. This means that the situation is perceived as not having any significant changes; it could be always good or bad. However, the second impression is more dominant as the most comments pointed out by lower class labourers and farmers whose land size is not so different from the regional average (about 2000 m2 wet or dry land). This pessimistic sound is likely due to experiencing a bad situation during most of their live. Their poverty is generally inherited from their parents, which is difficult to escape without external help.

“For us, the situation remains constant. It is perhaps our destiny to be poor. We don’t have any land except this small piece to live on. We don’t have any skills except cultivate a very small-scale farm. However, I cannot blame my parents; they have given all these to me. I hope my son can understand the situation’.

His wife takes part in this conversation and makes a comment:

“I think we should still thank God. This situation is better than them (she point a finger at a particular neighbouring house). We cultivate our own land, whereas they cultivate other persons land, and only maro (share the harvest 50:50 % with the owner)”.

I asked them whether all families have similar experiences, with not much possibility to improve their situation. He denied and described that there is some hope for families whose members migrate for jobs to other regions:

He said, “as household help, they get an opportunity to develop a simple saving scheme starting to buy gold, goats, cows and, if only there are neighbours like me, who due to adverse circumstances (illness) are willing to sell a parcel of land, they will have a change to enlarge their own”.

Why doesn’t your son go to the city?

“It is difficult for him to get a job with agood salary on only having an elementary school certificate. This is not a problem for women to be a housekeeper. Although the salary is not much, in case she has a good boss she will almost never spend her salary and keeps it as savings”.

All stakeholders’ answers show that there are ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ changes. People were happy when experiencing positive changes and sad when experiencing negative changes, while many are also sad when the situation remains the same. The question is “what should be changed in a positive sense?” By giving proper attention upon the content of the conversation, it is found that there are typical ‘words/terms’ used by respondents. These words (see table 3.) are the input to answer that question.

MENTIONED TERMS/ASSETS

ACTOR MENTIONS

CHANGING

COMMON ACTOR'S PERCEPT.

ASSET FUNCTION/BENEFITS

Land

Production Input car

Farmer, Trader

Decrease (ha/pop)

Worse

Production Input mobile phone

Traders/Middleman

Increase

Better

Production Input motorcycle

Traders/Middleman

Increase

Better

Consumption television

Consumption farm yield

Unclear (better and worse)

Consumption Family member (population)

Unclear (better and worse)

Current/Future Production input/consumption Cows

Current/Future Production input/consumption salary

Farmer

Increase

Consumption/futue necessities saving

Govt. Officer, Ind worker

Increase

better

future/unpredicted necessities transportation network

Govt. Officer

Increase

better

Production Input/consumption new auction market

Production Input national market nodes

some farmer

Added

Better

Production Input Local Product

Big trader

Unclear (better , worse NSMD)

Production Input Farming tecnique (mulsa)

local productivity (ton/ha)

All

Increase

Unclear (better , worse NSMD)

Production Input Farming tecnique (tumpangsari)

All

Increase

Unclear (better , worse NSMD)

Production Input "open market"

All

Increase

Unclear (better , worse NSMD)

Production input National demand

Big trader

Increase

Better

Production input gasoline price

Big trader

Volatile, uncertain

Better

Production Input fertilizer price

Production Input daily necessities price

Farmer, Retailer

Uncertain, tend to increase

Worse

Consumption yield price

Consumption big trader in Jakarta

All

Volatile, uncertain

Unclear

Production input Person/inst will lend me money

Production Input NGO

All

Uncertain (IF)

Unclear

Production Input local image

Production input (news) paper

Production Input & Consumption television progam

WELL-BEING EVALUATION AND CONTRIBUTING FACTORS